Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, as it is known by its English-language acronym, is the molecule in human beings and other creatures “that make[s] each species unique.” DNA, “along with the instructions it contains, is passed from adult organisms to their offspring during reproduction”; it determines exactly which physical characteristics the offspring of reproducing human beings will display. (National Institutes of Health, National Human Genome Research Institute)

A drawing of the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule, the holder of microscopic, bio-chemical information that literally makes each human being unique

Who owns or, looking at DNA in a legal context, who should be able to control access to any single person’s or group of citizens’ DNA data?

Now, the European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg, France, has issued a ruling that begins to answer this question, at least in Europe. Yesterday, the court “ruled that keeping DNA samples taken from people with no criminal convictions is an illegal invasion of privacy. (Scotsman) The test case that led to the ECHR’s decision came from the United Kingdom; it involved an 11-year-old boy “who was charged with attempted robbery…and later acquitted, and a man who was charged with harassing his partner before [that] case was formally discontinued. Both [had] applied [to British authorities] for their fingerprints, DNA samples and profiles to be destroyed, but [the] police kept [that personal] information. The two individuals argued that this continued to cast suspicion on them after they had been cleared of any wrongdoing.” Reuters reports that the ECHR’s panel of 17 judges “ruled unanimously that Britain had violated the right to respect for private life. They awarded the two people concerned 42,000 euros each [roughly $53,000] in expenses.” (Reuters; see also L’Express, France)

A statement from the ECHR about its ruling said: “The court was struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention….The powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences…failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests….” (Reuters)

Liberty, the U.K.-based organization that advocates for the protection of civil liberties and human rights, called the court’s ruling on DNA records a victory; the group also opposes government snooping on ordinary citizens, as reflected in this photo from its website showing a surveillance camera staring at a wall marked with the phrase, “What are you looking at?”

The human-rights court’s ruling has special implications for law-enforcement officials in Britain. For now, the government of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has not said whether or not it intends to comply with it “by bringing in laws that would destroy nearly a million DNA samples taken from suspects who have been exonerated by the police and courts.” Instead, British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith “said she was ‘disappointed’ by the judgment and confirmed [that existing] law would remain unchanged while [Brown's cabinet] ministers consider what, if any, action to take.” If the British government “does not accept the new judgment, it could provoke a constitutional crisis between ministers and judges in Strasbourg who act as the final court of appeal for human-rights laws across Europe.” (Independent, U.K.)

The Edinburgh-based Scotsman notes that the ECHR ruling “is a massive setback for the Home Office [Britain's interior ministry] and police [in the rest of the U.K.], who have hailed the indefinite retention of DNA profiles from people arrested by police – regardless of whether they are then convicted of the crime – as a powerful investigative tool against murder, rape and other crimes. It means England is likely to be forced to adopt the Scottish system, [in which] police are only allowed to retain samples from people who are not just arrested, but are charged and convicted. However, the ruling could also have implications for the system in Scotland[,] where ministers are consulting on an expansion of DNA retention to include people who accept fixed-penalty notices for minor offenses.”

British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has said that, for now, despite the European human-rights court’s ruling, the U.K. government will not stop holding onto DNA records of even innocent people; here, in a file photo, Smith is seen holding a sample national-identity card, a new credential Britain’s government wants every Briton to carry; human-rights groups oppose that proposal

In their statement about their ruling, the ECHR judges noted that the DNA information British authorities have insisted on holding onto “could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society.” (Scotsman)

Reuters notes that human-rights supporters have been “jubilant” in reaction to the ECHR’s decision. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, the U.K.-based organization that advocates for the protection of civil liberties and human rights, remarked: “This is one of the most strongly worded judgments that Liberty has ever seen from the [European] Court of Human Rights.” The court, Chakrabarti added, “has used human-rights principles and common sense to deliver the privacy protection of innocent people that the British government has shamefully failed to deliver.”